Alan Manuel Gloria: > I'm concerned about # syntax. > > In particular, I'm worried about # syntax being used for non-datums > (basically, comments). > > I wonder if adding this to the spec would be a good idea: > > <p> > If an implementation supports some way of > extending the reader syntax at all, > such as by providing a hook into the <code>#</code> reader, > then that hook <em>MUST</em> be able to signal > a non-datum (basically, a comment).
The issue is certainly real. But without a standard way to signal it, it's not clear what this text would do for anyone. I think it should at best be a "SHOULD", and perhaps not even that if there's no standard interface. Are you trying to slyly slip comment-tag into the spec :-) ? > Basically, I worry that people will de-facto-standardize on just > returning a datum (without any way of signalling a comment), and if > the text read in is a comment, to recurse into 'read. Recursing into > 'read is problematic for an indentation processor as it has a very > rich state. Understood! --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
